A 
A 

0 

0 
0 
7 
9 
6 
4 
2 
3 


Mangasarian 
Bryan  on  Religion 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 
THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


"To  stay  put,  to  stand  pat,  to  stick 
in  the  mud — such  is  the  sin  of 
trying  to  remain  stationary." 


Bryan  on  Religion 


Delivered  Before  the 
Independent  Religious 
Society,  Orchestra 
Hall,  Michigan  Ate. 
ft  Adams  St.,  Chicago, 
Sunday  at  11  A.  M. 


.       By 
M.  M.  MANQASARIAN 


/  have  recently  been  examining 
all  the  A'//oap;/  superstitions  of  the 
z>.'orld  and  do  not  find  in  our  par- 
ticular superstition  one  redeeming 
feature;  they  are  all  founded  on 
fables  and  mythologies. 

— Thomas  Jefferson. 


£ 

-6 

337  ^31 


Bryan  on  Religion 


For  the  past  ten  years  or  more,  Mr.  Bryan  has  been  talking 
to  the  American  people. 

He  has  traveled  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  American 
continent,  and  has  also  visited  the  populous  cities  of  Europe 
and  Asia,  addressing  audiences  everywhere.  As  a  rule  he  talks 
on  politics,  economics  and  morality.  Recently,  however,  he 
has  added  a  new  subject  to  his  repertoire — religion. 

Mr.  Bryan  enjoys  the  reputation  of  being  an  orator.  But 
it  is  not  how  Mr.  Bryan  says  a  thing,  but  what  he  says  that 
we  are  at  present  interested  in.  And  our  interest  in  what 
he  says  is  heightened  by  the  prominence  he  enjoys,  and  the 
popularity  he  commands  in  this  day  and  generation. 

We  became  acquainted  with  Mr.  Bryan's  religion  by  read- 
ing his  brochure,  "Letters  Addressed  to  a  Chinese  Official." 
We  have  also  carefully  perused  the  full  reports  of  his  recent 
talks  before  various  religious  gatherings  in  this  country.  In 
these  speeches,  as  also  in  the  above  mentioned  work,  Mr. 
Bryan  announces  himself  as  a  champion  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tianity. This  in  itself  is  significant  enough,  but  it  is  when  Mr. 
Bryan  attempts  to  reason  about  it  that  he  becomes  really 
amusing. 

The  nature  of  the  arguments  which  Mr.  Bryan  advances, 
and  the  conclusions  he  wishes  to  reach  show,  in  the  first  place, 
the  mental  equipment  of  a  representative  American  of  these 
times,  and,  in  the  second  place,  they  illustrate  the  baneful  in- 
fluence of  the  popular  religion  upon  the  reasoning  faculties 
of  the  average  Christian. 

"It  is  a  terrible  thing,"  says  Victor  Hugo,  "to  have  once 
been  a  priest."  It  is  almost  as  dangerous  to  have  received 
one's  training  from  a  clergyman.  The  pupil  of  the  church 

3 


1051156 


schools  is  brought  up  in  a  cramped  and  cramping  atmosphere. 
He  is  not  taught  to  inquire  or  to  reason,  but  to  believe.  To 
doubt  is  represented  as  a  crime,  and  every  effort  is  made  to 
convert  him  or  her  before  the  mind  has  matured — in  childhood. 
Intolerance  toward  non-Christian  faiths  and  peoples  is  one  of 
the  earliest  prejudices  which  clerical  education  seeks  to  im- 
plant in  children.  Mr.  Bryan  has  not  outgrown  the  intellectual 
twist  of  his  early  religious  training.  And  while  we  are  willing 
to  make  allowances  for  a  man  whose  education  has  unfitted 
him  for  clear,  consistent  reasoning,  we  have  no  charity  for 
the  education  itself,  for  it  is  of  the  nature  of  an  unedttcation, 
its  greatest  success  being  the  intellectual  invalid. 

The  educational  method  in  vogue  among  the  churches  en- 
courages disrespect  for  evidence.  It  reverses  accepted  rules 
of  honest  reasoning.  It  is  a  training  in  the  sterile  art  of  dodg- 
ing and  dogmatizing.  In  lieu  of  truths  courting  the  severest 
tests,  the  pupils  are  equipped  with  a  loose  vocabulary  of  words, 
words,  words,  and  again  words.  They  are  taught  how  not  to 
think  logically  or  daringly.  Sydney  Smith  hit  the  right  nail  on 
the  head,  and  hit  it  hard,  when  he  said  that  the  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  a  sermon  is  its  "decent  debility."  It  hazards 
nothing,  it  is  a  tedious  essay  of  evasions,  assumptions  and 
commonplaces. 

The  following  is  a  good  illustration : 

M.  Bryan  was  at  the  recent  Peace  Congress  in  New  York 
City.  He  usually  sat  on  the  platform  in  Carnegie  Hall.  The 
speaker  at  one  of  the  afternoon  sessions  was  Sir  Robert  Ball, 
of  England,  a  scientist  of  international  reputation — a  distin- 
guished astronomer  and  philosopher.  Sir  Robert  Ball  argued 
that  the  doctrine  of  Darwin  supported  the  cause  of  peace,  be- 
cause war  brought  about  the  survival  of  the  weak  instead  of 
the  strong.  The  best,  youngest,  bravest  and  most  patriotic 
go  to  the  field  and  die,  while  the  sick  and  the  weak  remain  at 
home  to  propagate  their  kind.  Sir  Robert  made  one  of  the 
most  telling  scientific  pleas  in  favor  of  peace,  said  a  correspond- 
ent of  the  press  who  was  present  at  the  meeting.  But  Mr. 
Bryan  deliberately  interrupted  this  meeting  by  rising  to  his 


feet,  and  asking  for  permission  from  the  chairman  to  enter  a 
protest  against  Sir  Robert  Ball's  address.  The  chairman 
granted  the  desired  permission,  Mr.  Bryan  walked  to  the  edge 
of  the  platform  and  said  that  he  was  surprised  to  hear  anyone 
base  an  argument  for  universal  peace  on  the  doctrine  that 
man  had  descended  from  the  monkey.  "The  divinity  of  man," 
said  Mr.  Bryan,  was  the  sure  foundation  upon  which  to  build 
the  Temple  of  Peace. 

The  introduction  of  the  words  "monkey"  and  "divinity" 
into  the  discussion  not  only  furnishes  an  example  of  what 
might  be  called  an  oratorical  trick,  but  it  also  shows  Mr. 
Bryan,  in  thus  appealing  to  the  prejudices,  and  bidding  for 
the  applause  of  the  many,  to  be  entirely  indifferent  to  the  evi- 
dence for  or  against  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  He  knows 
that  the  majority  of  church  people  do  not  like  the  doctrine, 
and  that  is  enough.  Is  he  not,  then,  a  good  illustration  of 
the  method  of  the  dogmatist  who,  fearing  the  second,  sober 
thought  of  the  thinking  few,  resorts  to  the  maneuvers  of  the 
demagogue  to  capture  the  unthinking  many?  "Great  is  Diana 
of  the  Ephesians !"  screamed  the  street  mobs,  but  that  did  not 
make  Diana  great.  Neither  does  Mr.  Bryan's  cry  of  "monkey" 
make  Darwinism  untrue.  To  answer  a  scientist  by  calling 
him  a  monkey,  and  to  capture  the  crowd  by  telling  them  the  \ 
are  "divine" — is  this  about  the  best  that  a  representative  gradu- 
ate of  the  church  schools  can  do  ? 

Speaking  in  Washington  recently,  Mr.  Bryan  said :  "Some 

believe  in  the  theory  of  evolution. 1  am  not  yet  convinced 

that  the  monkey  is  any  part  of  my  family  tree."  But  he  added  . 
"If  other  people  prefer  to  find  their  ancestors  in  that  direction, 
I  would  not  object,  for  if  a  man  has  not  the  right  to  choose 
his  ancestors,  what  right  has  he?"  At  this,  of  course,  there 
was  laughter,  and  the  theory  of  evolution  was  thus  demolished 
by  a  jest.  Mr.  Bryan  makes  it  to  appear  that  the  question  ot 
man's  ancestry  is  to  be  decided  by  a  popular  vote.  He  speaks 
of  people  preferring  or  not  preferring  a  certain  kind  of  ances- 
try, but  is  the  truth  of  evolution  subject  to  our  whims?  We 
may  say,  we  prefer  to  believe  that  this  continent  of  America 

5 


was  first  settled  by  a  race  of  heavenly  beings  instead  of  by 
cruel  and  gold  hunting  Spaniards.  Can  our  wishes  alter  the 
facts  of  history?  If  Bryan  wishes  to  disprove  the  accepted 
theory  of  evolution,  he  must  give  us  more  than  mere  declama- 
tion. You  are  familiar  with  the  answer  which  Huxley  gave 
to  Bishop  Wilberforce  of  London,  who  asked  Huxley  whether 
he  was  related  by  his  grandfather's  or  his  grandmother's  side 
to  an  ape.  Huxley's  reply  to  the  frivolous  bishop  was  com- 
plete and  crushing: 

"I  have  asserted,  and  I  repeat,  that  a  man  has  no  reason  to 
be  ashamed  of  having  an  ape  for  his  grandfather.  If  there 
were  an  ancestor  whom  I  should  feel  shame  in  recalling,  it 
would  be  a  man,  a  man  of  versatile  and  reckless  intellect,  who. 
not  content  with  an  equivocal  success  in  his  own  sphere  of 
activity,  plunges  into  scientific  questions  with  which  he  has 
no  real  acquaintance,  only  to  obscure  them  by  an  aimless  rhet- 
oric, and  distract  the  attention  of  his  hearers  from  the  real 
point  at  issue  by  eloquent  digressions  and  skilled  appeal  to 
religious  prejudice." 

In  the  address  which  Bryan  delivered  before  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  of  Springfield,  we  read  the  fol- 
lowing: "When  I  was  a  young  man  I  wrote  to  Robert  G. 
Ingersoll  for  his  views  on  God  and  immortality,"  and  all  that 
he  found  in  the  answer  sent  to  him  was:  "I  do  not  say  that 
there  is  no  God ;  I  simply  say  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  say 
there  is  no  life  beyond  the  grave;  I  do  not  know."  Quoting 
these  words  of  Ingersoll,  Bryan  continues :  "How  can  a  man 
take  from  a  human  heart  his  belief  in  immortality  and  put  into 
its  place  the  cold  and  cheerless  doctrine,  'I  do  not  know7'  ?  .  .  .  . 
I  am  as  sure"  concludes  Mr.  Bryan,  "that  man  will  live  again 
as  that  he  lives  today"? 

We  have  here  another  illustration  of  that  wneducation  into 
which  the  churches  take  care  to  train  their  converts.  Observe 
the  air  of  assurance  and  the  bravado  to  which  people  resort 
when  they  have  a  weak  case  to  defend.  When  Mr.  Bryan  says  : 
"I  am  as  sure  that  man  will  live  again  as  that  he  lives  today,"  4 
he  does  not  tell  the  truth.  Not  that  consciously  he  tells  a  false- 


hood,  but  such  has  been  his  training  that  he  cannot  distinguish 
between  what  he  knows  and  what  he  does  not  know. 

In  the  nature  of  things  it  is  impossible  to  be  as  sure  that  a 
man  will  live  again  as  that  he  lives  today.  We  can  see,  handle 
and  talk  to  the  living,  openly,  freely  and  in  broad  daylight ;  we 
cannot  do  the  same  with  the  dead.  If  there  were  any  over- 
whelming proofs  that  men  live  again  after  death,  the  question 
would  not  have  been  disputed  all  these  centuries.  We  never 
try  to  argue  whether  or  not  men  live  today,  and  if  the  other  life 
is  equally  certain,  why  is  it  forever  under  discussion?  The 
mere  fact  that  men  are  trying  to  prove  another  life  is  evidence 
that  it  stands  in  need  of  being  proved,  which  means  that  it  is 
not  as  yet  proved. 

We  recommend  to  Mr.  Bryan  these  words  of  Confucius — 
to  whom,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  he  fails  to  show  justice: 
"When  you  know  a  thing,  to  hold  that  you  know  it,  and  when 
you  do  not  know  a  thing,  to  hold  that  you  do  not  know  it — this 
is  knowledge." 

And  which  attitude  of  mind  is  the  nobler — Mr.  Ingersoll's, 
who  distinguishes  scrupulously  between  the  things  he  knows 
and  the  things  he  does  not  know — who  can  say,  modestly  and 
truthfully,  "I  do  not  know,"  or  Mr.  Bryan's,  who  says  glibly 
and  dogmatically  that  he  is  "as  sure  that  a  man  will  live  again 
as  that  he  lives  today"? 

There  was  a  time  when  Mr.  Bryan  did  not  possess  this 
assurance,  for  he  says :  "I  passed  through  a  period  of  doubt 
and  scepticism  when  I  was  in  college."  At  that  time,  evi- 
dently, he  was  not  "as  sure  that  a  man  will  live  again  as  that 
he  lives  today."  How,  then,  did  he  arrive  at  his  present 
assurance  ?  What  are  the  proofs  which  made  a  life  beyond  the 
grave  which  he  once  doubted  as  certain  as  the  present  life 
which  no  man  ever  for  a  moment  doubted?  The  probabilities 
are  that  Bryan's  college  "period  of  doubt  and  scepticism"  is  as 
insubstantial  as  his  present  assurance  or  certainty.  The  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  was  surely  fortunate  in  securing 
the  services  of  a  man  who  once  was  a  sceptic  and  a  doubter 
but  who  is  now  a  firm  believer. 


But  a  better  idea  of  the  mentality  of  the  one-time  candidate 
for  the  presidency  can  be  had  by  reading  his  defense  of  mira- 
cles. The  other  day  a  Chicago  preacher  speaking  at  the  Great 
Northern  Theatre  on  "Jonah  and  the  Man-Swallowing  Fish," 
complained  that  the  scientists  tried  to  put  restraints  upon  God's 
power  to  work  wonders.  "These  scientists,"  he  exclaimed, 
snapping  his  words  with  much  irritation — "these  scientists  who 
can  almost  do  what  God  did,  will  not  allow  God  to  do  more 
than  they  can  do!"  I  can  fancy  the  Deity  praying  to  be  de- 
livered from  such  defenders.  Mr.  Bryan  is  even  more  enter- 
taining when  he  expatiates  on  the  subject  of  miracles.  "If 
God  is  the  creator,  then  we  will  not  put  limits  to  his  power  to 
cause  a  miracle,"  says  the  Nebraska  statesman.  Yes — "if!" 
That  little  word  "if"  stands  quite  in  the  way.  To  beg  the  ques- 
tion is  not  to  prove  it.  Darwin  has  given  his  proofs  for  believ- 
ing in  evolution  instead  of  creation  out  of  nothing,  which 
would  make  all  other  miracles  look  very  easy.  Mr.  Bryan  gives 
no  reasons  for  believing  in  a  creator  other  than  to  quote  from 
an  anonymous  and  much  disputed  document,  called  "Genesis." 
//  this  "Genesis"  is  inspired,  if  it  is  infallible,  if  the  facts  of 
nature  corroborate  the  "Genesis"  statement,  if  the  theory  of 
evolution  has  been  shown  to  be  untrue — if  all  these  "ifs"  are 
granted,  then  Mr.  Bryan  will  have  no  difficulty  in  proving  his 
point. 

But  though  Mr.  Bryan  is  sure  God  can  work  miracles — 
Protestant  miracles,  not  the  Catholic  or  the  Mohammedan — 
he  is  not  sure  that  he  ever  has.  Here  is  an  interesting  sen- 
tence : 

The  difficult  part  of  that  question  is  that  some  people  think 
they  know  so  much  about  God,  his  purposes  and  his  affairs 
and  his  methods  that  they  assume  to  say  what  God  would  or 
would  not  do.  The  older  I  grow  the  less  disposed  I  am  to 
speak  positively  in  the  negative ;  for  I  have  found  it  so  diffi- 
cult to  decide  certainly  what  God  wants  done  today  that  I  am 
not  presumptuous  enough  to  look  back  over  the  ages  and  tell 
what  God  wanted  at  some  time  in  the  distant  past. 

Does  not  Mr.  Bryan  believe  in  the  Bible?  And  does  not  the 
Bible  tell  us  what  God  has  done  in  the  distant  past,  and  what 


he  shall  do  in  the  distant  future?  Is  not  this  a  clear  instance 
of  evasion?  Bryan  quotes  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God  to 
prove  a  creator,  who,  if  a  creator,  ought  to  have  no  limits  put 
to  his  power  to  work  miracles,  and  with  that  Bible  filled  with 
miracles  open  before  him,  he  says  he  cannot  tell  whether  or 
not  God  has  ever  worked  miracles.  He  has  barely  finished 
this  remarkable  utterance  when  he  pronounces  another  even 
more  remarkable :  "I  have  seen  so  many  things  about  me 
more  mysterious  than  any  miracle  that  I  am  not  willing  to 
allow  a  miracle  to  stand  between  me  and  the  Christian  re- 
ligion." If  a  premium  were  offered  for  the  most  paradoxical 
sentence  ever  penned,  I  am  sure  Mr.  Bryan  would  win  it. 
He  says  he  has  seen  many  things  "more  mysterious  than  a 
miracle."  What,  for  instance?  Are  not  the  words  mystery 
and  miracle  synonymous?  Does  he  mean  that  he  has  seen  so 
many  things  more  miraculous  than  a  miracle  or  more  mys- 
terious than  a  mystery?  A  miracle  is  something  we  do  not 
understand — it  is  a  mystery,  hence,  miracle  and  mystery  mean 
the  same  thing,  and  to  talk  of  anything  being  more  mysterious 
than  a  miracle  is  to  furnish  a  good  instance  of  the  ability  of 
the  clerically  trained  men  to  say  nothing  and  to  keep  on  say- 
ing it. 

It  is  true  that  the  origin  of  life,  the  birth  of  a  child — death 
— and  even  the  trembling  blade  of  grass,  are  mysteries  or 
miracles,  in  the  sense  that  we  are  not  able  to  fully  explain  how 
or  why  these  things  happen.  But  to  suggest  that  the  raising 
of  the  dead  by  Jesus  or  his  virgin-birth  is  no  more  miracu- 
lous than  the  blossoming  of  the  seed  in  the  ground  or  the 
birth  of  a  child  from  human  parents,  is  a  piece  of  intellectual 
legerdemain  which  satisfies  only  the  uneducated.  If  the  Bible 
miracles  are  no  more  miraculous  than  the  every-day  events  of 
life,  then  it  is  not  true  that  Jesus  worked  miracles,  any  more 
than  a  farmer  does  who  raises  a  crop.  But  there  is  really 
no  comparison  between  the  two  sets  of  phenomena,  because 
those  of  nature  are  permanent  and  orderly,  while  those  of 
the  Koran  or  the  Bible  have  no  historical  foundation,  cannot 
be  repeated  today,  and  they  contradict  the  universal  expe- 

9 


rience  of  man.  It  is  a  pity  Mr.  Bryan  cannot  find  the  time 
to  read  David  Hume's  masterly  treatment  of  the  subject  of 
miracles. 

But  no  sooner  has  Mr.  Bryan  declared  the  miraculousness 
of  certain  phenomena,  he  proceeds  to  say  that  they  are  not 
miraculous  at  all.  "Is  it  impossible,"  he  asks,  "that  a  crowd 
should  be  fed  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes?"  He  does  not, 
then,  think  such  a  performance  impossible.  "Every  spring," 
he  continues,  "vegetation  comes  up  and  not  a  few  thousands 
but  millions  are  fed  from  the  products  of  the  soil."  Could 
there  be  a  better  example  of  sophistry  than  this?  What  re- 
lation is  there  between  Jesus  taking  a  few  loaves  and  fishes, 
and  in  an  instant  multiplying  them  so  that  not  only  thousands 
of  hungry  people  are  fed,  but  a  larger  quantity  is  left  over 
and  thrown  away — and  between  the  ploughing  and  sowing  of 
the  field  by  the  farmer  for  his  corn  or  wheat  which  takes 
months  to  ripen — which  is  harvested,  sent  to  the  mill,  and 
is  baked  and  used  as  bread  in  fixed  quantities?  Can  the 
farmer  multiply  his  one  acre  into  a  hundred,  or  his  one  bushel 
into  a  thousand,  or  his  one  loaf  into  a  million  ?  Moreover,  will 
Bryan  allow  the  same  illustration  to  prove  the  miracles  of 
Buddha  and  other  religious  teachers,  or  does  it  only  prove 
the  miracles  of  Jesus?  And  this  is  the  Mr.  Bryan  who 
claims  to  be  a  disciple  of  the  great  Jefferson,  the  rationalist, 
one  of  whose  sayings  I  quoted  a  few  Sundays  ago:  "I  have 
recently  been  examining  all  the  known  superstitions  of  the 
world,  and  do  not  find  in  our  particular  superstition  one  re- 
deeming feature ;  they  are  all  founded  on  fables  and  mythol- 
ogies." 

But  it  is  in  his  attempt  to  convert  China  to  his  creed  that 
Mr.  Bryan  becomes  apostolic  in  faith  and  fervor. 

Some  few  years  ago,  a  pamphlet  appeared  in  England,  en- 
titled Letters  from  John  Chinaman,  which  called  attention  to 
certain  defects  in  Occidental  civilization,  and  gave  reasons 
which,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  justified  the  Chinese  to  think 
that  they  were  more  civilized  than  either  the  Europeans  or 
the  Americans.  The  first  impression  was  that  the  work  was 

10 


that  of  an  educated  Chinaman,  thoroughly  conversant  with 
Western  life  and  thought.  It  has  since  been  announced  that 
the  author  of  the  little  book  is  an  Englishman,  Mr.  G.  L. 
Dickinson.  Mr.  Bryan  did  not  find  this  out,  however,  until 
after  he  had  written  his  answer.  A  perusal  of  this  answer 
shows  that  Bryan's  visit  to  the  various  countries  of  the 
world  has  not  broadened  his  sympathies,  nor  opened  his  mind 
to  those  truths  that  are  larger  than  any  sect  or  religion.  In 
discussing  his  effort  to  induce  the  Chinese  to  become  Chris- 
tians, I  am  not  going  to  criticise  Mr.  Bryan's  motives. 
Whether  he  is  sincere,  or  whether  he  is  bidding  for  the  popu- 
lar vote,  is  no  concern  of  mine.  I  prefer  to  believe  that  he  is 
sincere.  My  subject  is  not  Bryan's  character,  but  Bryan's 
religion. 

To  prove  to  John  Chinaman  that  he  must  exchange  Con- 
fucius for  Christ,  Mr.  Bryan  commits  the  same  unpardonable 
blunder  that  so  many  other  apologists  of  Christianity  have 
made.  There  are  certain  stereotyped  objections  to  which  the 
orthodox  resort  when  they  find  their  list  of  arguments  ex- 
hausted. One  of  these  is  the  everlasting:  "You  give  nothing 
in  place  of  what  you  take  away."  It  seems  that  you  cannot 
take  any  error  away  without  giving  another  in  its  place.  A 
man  will  give  up  Catholicism  for  Protestantism,  or  Protes- 
tantism for  Christian  Science,  or  that  for  Dowieism — be- 
cause he  is  always  getting  something  in  place  of  what  he 
discards ;  but  you  will  have  great  difficulty  to  induce  him  to 
give  them  all  up,  unless  you  can  offer  him  some  new  kind 
of  superstition.  But  what  does  a  doctor  give  in  place  of  the 
cancer  he  cuts  from  the  body?  What  did  Lincoln  give  to 
the  slave  owners  when  he  took  away  their  slaves?  Am  I 
robbing  a  man  because  I  prevail  upon  him  to  throw  away 
his  counterfeit  money? 

Another  of  these  stereotyped  objections  is:  "You  are 
negative,  and  not  positive."  This  is  Bryan's  criticism  of 
Confucius.  How  tyrannical  is  the  sway  of  certain  words 
and  phrases  upon  the  popular  mind?  An  artificial  appetite 
for  chaff  has  been  created,  so  that  even  when  one  is  dis- 

11 


coursing  on  the  beauty  and  glory  of  health,  freedom,  truth, 
progress — the  cry  still  is,  "But  we  want  the  chaff  we  have 
been  brought  up  on,  or  a  new7  kind  of  chaff  equally  dry  and 
bloodless !" 

It  was  a  painful  surprise  to  us  to  see  in  Mr.  Bryan's  argu- 
ment for  the  conversion  of  China  the  following : 

Tsze-Kung  asked,  "Is  there  not  one  word  which  may  serve 
as  a  rule  of  practice  for  all  one's- life?"  Confucius  replied: 
"Is  not  reciprocity  such  a  word?  What  you  do  not  want  done 
to  yourself,  do  not  do  to  others."  Christ  taught,  "Whatsoever 
ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them." 
These  two  precepts  have  sometimes  been  confused,  and  Con- 
fucius has  even  been  credited  with  forestalling  the  Golden 
Rule.  But  there  is  a  world  of  difference  between  the  two  doc- 
trines. "Do  not"  states  the  negative  side  and  is  good  as  far  as 
it  goes.  The  man  who  obeys  Confucius  will  do  no  harm,  and 
that  is  something ;  the  harmless  man  stands  upon  a  higher 
plane  than  the  man  who  injures  others.  But  "Do"  is  the  posi- 
tive form  of  the  rule,  and  the  man  who  does  good  is  vastly 
superior  to  the  merely  harmless  man. 

Is  not  this  pitiable?  If  Confucius  offered  the  Golden 
Rule  six  hundred  years  before  Christ  in  the  negative  form, 
Isocrates  and  Plato  gave  it  in  its  positive  form.  "May  I  do 
to  others  as  I  would  that  others  should  do  to  me,"*  said  the 
great  Plato,  centuries  before  Jesus  was  born.  Why  did  not 
Mr.  Bryan  remember  this?  Is  it  possible  that  there  is  in 
our  country  an  educated  man  who  can  really  believe  that 
the  Greek,  the  Roman,  the  Egyptian  or  the  Babylonian  world 
lived  for  thousands  of  years  without  ever  rising  to  the  thought 
of  neighborliness  until  Jesus  came  to  announce  it? 

And  is  not  all  this  talk  about  Confucius  being  negative 
the  merest  rhetoric?  Are  not  all  the  Ten  Commandments 
written  by  God  himself,  who  certainly  is  not  in  any  way 
second  to  Christ — all  in  the  negative?  "Thou  shall  not" 
refers  to  acts  not  to  be  done — it  is  merely  negative. 

Did  not  Jesus  also  express  one  of  his  most  character- 
istic commandments  in  the  negative  ?  "Resist  not  evil."  Does 
not  Mr.  Bryan  know  what  even  the  most  ordinary  man 

*Jo-it'ctt  Trans.    V .— 483.  P. 

12 


knows,  that  the  form  in  which  a  thought  is  expressed  is 
really  no  part  of  the  thought?  The  form  is  to  the  idea  or 
the  meaning  what  the  shell  is  to  the  kernel.  What  does  a 
man  mean  when  he  says  "Be  not  false"?  It  is  only  another 
way  of  saying,  "Be  truthful."  Only  a  trifler  and  a  haggler 
would  insist  that  there  was  a  world  of  difference  between 
these  two  forms  of  expressing  the  same  idea.  "Do  not  be 
a  coward"  is  another  way  of  saying,  "Be  brave."  "Do  not 
steal"  means,  "Respect  your  neighbor's  rights."  Sometimes 
it  is  more  impressive  to  throw  one's  thought  in  the  positive 
and  sometimes  in  the  negative  form.  It  is  all  a  matter  of 
emphasis  and  suitableness.  Jesus  must  be  in  dire  need  of 
support  when  his  defenders  try  to  elevate  a  mere  grammati- 
cal difference  between  Confucius  and  Jesus  into  an  insignia 
of  divinity  for  the  latter.  Lacking  any  forcible  arguments 
to  prove  the  infinite  superiority  of  Jesus,  and  chagrined  to 
find  that  a  heathen,  six  hundred  years  before,  had  announced 
the  "Golden  Rule,"  which  makes  Jesus'  thought  second-hand, 
they  seek  comfort  in  rhetorical  construction  of  sentences,  and 
Pharisaical  niceties  of  expression.  Nothing  shows  better  the 
weakness  of  a  cause  and  the  desperation  of  its  agents  than 
their  recourse  to  such  fictitious  and  fantastic  argumentation. 

And  after  all,  between  Jesus,  a  God,  and  Confucius,  a 
"heathen"  man,  there  is  not  even  the  grammatical  difference 
which  Bryan  imagines.  When  the  Chinese  philosopher  was 
asked  for  a  word  which  shall  express  a  universal  .rule  of  con- 
duct, he  answered:  "Is  not  Reciprocity  such  a  word?'' 
Whether  expressed  in  one  form  or  another,  the  idea  embod- 
ied in  the  glorious  word  Reciprocity  is  decidedly  positive, 
and  Mr.  Bryan  tries  in  vain  to  rob  the  distinguished  China- 
man of  the  honor  of  having  given  clear  and  forcible  expres- 
sion— six  hundred  years  before  Christ — to  one  of  the  most 
universal  truths,  a  truth  older  than  both  Confucius  and  Jesus ! 
Had  Mr.  Bryan  taken  the  pains  to  familiarize  himself 
with  the  researches  of  Oriental  scholarship  he  would  not  have 
laid  such  stress  upon  a  difference  between  Confucius  and 
Jesus,  which,  as  the  following  from  Professor  James  Legge, 

13 


of  the  University  of  Oxford,  and  one  of  the  foremost  stu- 
dents of  Chinese  Language  and  Literature  shows,  exists  only 
in  Mr.  Bryan's  fancy:  "His  words  then  showed  that  the 
rule  (the  Golden  Rule)  had  for  him  not  only  a  negative  form, 
but  also  a  positive  form."  Again,  Professor  Legge  declares 
that  the  Chinese  from  other  lessons  that  Confucius  left  them 
"understand  it  (the  Golden  Rule),  not  only  as  a  negative, 
but  also  as  a  positive  rule."  (*) 

Finally,  it  is  regrettable  that  Mr.  Bryan  had  not  acquainted 
himself  with  the  teaching  of  Lao-Tsze,  the  great  countryman 
of  Confucius,  who  said,  "Return  good  for  evil."  (2)  But 
now  that  Mr.  Bryan  has  been  enlightened  will  he  have  the 
goodness  to  recall  his  argument  about  "negative"  and  "posi- 
tive"— an  argument  unworthy  of  a  man  of  Bryan's  oppor- 
tunities to  know  better,  and  which  would  be  tolerated  only 
in  an  intellectual  cripple? 

Proceeding,  Mr.  Bryan,  as  is  usual  with  amateur  defenders 
of  Christianity,  claims  all  the  virtues  for  Jesus,  leaving  only 
the  crumbs  for  sages  of  other  lands. 

To  show  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to  Confucius,  Mr.  Bryan 
argues  as  follows:  "I  will  contend  that  one  who  follows 
Christ  afar  off,  with  limping  step  and  many  a  fall,  may 
live  a  nobler  life  than  the  perfect  disciple  of  Confucius."  Is 
not  this  another  way  of  saying  that  even  an  imperfect  Chris- 
tian is  better  than  a  perfect  Chinaman?  But  a  Christian's 
boast  is  no  more  convincing  than  a  Chinaman's  wrould  be. 
Where  is  the  evidence  that  even  a  crippled  Christian  "may 
live  a  nobler  life  than  the  perfect  disciple  of  Confucius  ?" 
Has  not  Mr.  Bryan  read  the  lives  of  the  popes  whom  more 
than  one-half  of  Christendom  accepts  as  the  vicars  of  Christ  ? 
In  what  sense  did  these  first-class  Christians  live  a  nobler 
life  than  the  scrupulous  and  stoic  followers  of  the  philosopher 
of  China  ? 

Continuing.  Mr.  Bryan  cites  the  passages  which  represent 
Jesus  as  counselling  love  and  forgiveness :  "Ye  have  heard 

(i.)     The  Religions  of  China.    James  Legge.     Pages  138-260. 
(2)     The  Religions  of  China.    James  Legge.     Page  143. 

14 


that  it  has  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  and  hate 
thy  enemy,  but  I  say  unto  you,  love  your  enemies."  The 
commandment  "Love  one  another"  is  also  quoted  as  original 
with  Jesus.  Now,  if  Mr.  Bryan  will  take  the  time  to  read 
his  Bible  carefully  he  will  find  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus,  xix. 
chapter  and  i8th  verse,  word  for  word  the  "Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  which  he  thinks  was  first  uttered 
by  Jesus.  Jesus,  then,  was  only  repeating  what  had  already 
been  announced,  and  the  commandment  to  love  one's  ene- 
mies has  its  parallel  in  Buddhism.  To  overcome  injury  with 
kindness  is  one  of  the  fundamentals  of  the  religion  which  has 
made  five  hundred  millions  of  converts.  But  whether  it  was 
Jesus  or  Buddha  who  first  expressed  this  thought,  it  is  gen- 
erally admitted  that  it  has  only  a  sentimental  value.  When 
Christians  of  opposing  sects  shall  begin  to  love  one  another, 
then  it  will  be  time  for  them  to  talk  about  loving  also  "one's 
enemies."  "Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire" 
are  the  words  of  Jesus  to  his  enemies  on  the  last  day.  To 
send  one's  enemies  to  hell  is  a  strange  way  of  loving  them.  Nor 
is  it  fair  to  quote  these  words  of  Jesus :  "Ye  have  heard 
that  it  has  been  said,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  and 
hate  thy  enemy,  but  I  say  unto  you  love  your  enemies," 
without  asking — Who  said  that  we  must  hate  our  ene- 
mies? Mr.  Bryan  is  not  justified  in  quoting  this  pas- 
sage against  Confucius,  for  the  great  Chinese  teacher 
never  commanded  hatred  of  one's  enemies.  What  he 
said  was:  "Recompense  injury  with  justice."  And  is  not 
that  a  nobler  ideal?  To  treat  evil  as  one  would  the  good  is 
to  do  the  latter  an  irreparable  injustice.  Ethics  is  the  ap- 
preciation of  moral  values.  To  offer  the  same  reward  to  the 
vicious  and  the  virtuous  alike  would  be  a  sort  of  nihilism. 
Is  not  Bryan  really  blinded  by  his  rhetoric  when  he  claims 
"infinite  superiority"  for  Christianity  because  it  teaches  in- 
difference to  the  stern  behest  of  Justice?  But  again  we  ask: 
Which  great  teacher  taught  hatred  of  one's  enemies?  Was  it 
Buddha?  Was  it  Socrates?  Was  it  Zoroaster?  If  it  was 
Moses,  was  he  not  the  mouthpiece  of  God?  And  when  Mr. 

15 


Bryan  quotes  the  reported  prayer  of  Jesus  on  the  cross 
for  his  murderers:  "Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do,"  he  neglects  to  ask  whether  it  was  ever 
answered.  Was  it  an  honest  prayer?  Did  Jesus  mean  to 
take  his  murderers  to  heaven  with  him.  Were  not  his  ene- 
mies punished  on  earth  with  war  and  famine,  and  in  the  next 
world  menaced  with  eternal  damnation  ?  Socrates  died  with  no 
such  dramatic  utterance  on  his  lips.  The  martyrdom  of  Soc- 
rates is  historical ;  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  and  his  prayer  for 
his  assassins  possess  all  the  characteristics  of  a  stage  per- 
formance. Thus  the  element  of  artificiality  which  is  so  con- 
spicuous in  the  Gospel  settings  is  reproduced  in  the  reasoning 
of  Mr.  Bryan.  Let  the  reader  examine  carefully  the  fol- 
lowing which  the  Nebraskan  has  borrowed  from  the  Rev. 
C.  E.  Jefferson  of  New  York,  and  incorporated  it  into  the 
text  of  his  book  against  Confucius : 

Christ  in  history !  There  is  a  fact — face  it.  According  to 
the  New  Testament,  Jesus  walked  along  the  shores  of  a  little 
sea  known  as  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  And  there  He  called  Peter 
and  Andrw  and  James  and  John  and  several  others  to  be  His 
followers,  and  they  left  all  and  followed  Him.  After  they  had 
followed  Him  they  revered  Him,  and  later  on  adored  and 
worshipped  Him.  He  left  them  on  their  faces,  each  man  say- 
ing, "My  Lord  and  my  God !"  All  that  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

But  put  the  New  Testament  away.  Time  passes ;  history 
widens ;  an  unseen  Presence  walks  up  and  down  the  shores 
of  a  larger  sea — the  sea  called  the  Mediterranean — and  this 
unseen  Presence  calls  men  to  follow  him.  Tertullian,  Augus- 
tine, Anselm,  Aquinas,  Francis  of  Assisi,  Thomas  a  Kempis, 
Savonarola,  John  Huss,  Martin  Luther,  Philip  Melanchthon, 
Ulrich  Zwingli,  John  Calvin — another  twelve — and  these  all 
followed  Him  and  cast  themselves  at  His  feet,  saying,  *m  the 
words  of  the  earlier  twelve,  "My  Lord  and  my  God !" 

Time  passes ;  history  advances ;  humanity  lives  its  life 
around  the  circle  of  a  larger  sea — the  Atlantic  Ocean.  An 
unseen  Presence  walks  up  and  down  the  shores  calling  men 
to  follow  Him.  He  calls  John  Knox,  John  Wesley,  George 
Whitefield,  Charles  Spurgeon,  Henry  Parry  Liddon,  Joseph 
Parker,  Jonathan  Edwards,  Horace  Bushnell,  Henry  Ward 

16 


Beecher,  Richard  Saltus  Storrs,  Phillips  Brooks,  Dwight  L. 
Moody — another  twelve — and  these  leave  all  and  follow  Him. 
We  find  them  on  their  faces,  each  one  saying,  "My  Lord  and 
my  God  !" 

Time  passes;  history  is  widening;  humanity  is  building 
its  civilization  round  a  still  wider  sea— we  call  it  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  An  unknown  Presence  moves  up  and  down  the 
shores  calling  men  to  follow  Him,  and  they  are  doing  it.  An- 
other company  of  twelve  is  forming.  And  what  took  place  in 
Palestine  nineteen  centuries  ago  is  taking  place  again  in  our 
own  day  and  under  our  own  eyes. 

Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Bryan  cannot  see  how  forced  and 
fictitious  the  above  argument  is?  Does  he  not  know  that  the 
number  "twelve"  is  a  pure  invention  in  all  the  four  instances 
quoted?  The  real  number  of  the  apostles  of  Jesus  was  not 
"twelve."  Judas  having  been  ousted,  there  remained  only 
eleven,  to  which  two  new  names  were  added,  that  of  Mathias 
and  Paul,  bringing  the  number  up  to  thirteen.  "The  twelve 
apostles"  then  is  a  mere  tradition.  Mr.  Bryan  secures  his 
set  of  "twelves"  by  bunching  together  men  like  Tertullian 
and  John  Calvin,  Luther  and  Augustine,  who  would  have 
burned  one  another  as  heretics.  And  in  order  to  stop  at 
the  magic  number  "twelve,"  he  omits  other  equally  distin- 
guished names  of  Christian  teachers  of  the  same  period — 
Jerome,  Origen,  Irenaeus,  Papias,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Swedenborg,  Theodore  Beza  and  numerous  others.  The  same 
artificial  arrangement  appears  in  his  next  group  of  "twelve," 
headed  by  John  Knox — the  names  of  Baxter,  Chambers, 
Robertson,  Newman  Hall,  Sydney  Smith,  Dean  Stanley,  Canon 
Farrar,  Finney,  Talmadge,  Lorimer,  Channing,  Ballou  and 
Bellows  are  left  out  in  order  to  preserve  the  cabalistic 
"twelve."  And  the  remark  that  "another  company  of  twelve 
is  forming  on  the  Pacific  Coast"  will  be  made  good  by  some 
future  Bryan  who  will  resort  to  similar  tactics  of  picking  and 
pruning  to  make  up  his  list.  Of  what  service  to  any  cause 
can  such  literalism  be?  Alas,  for  the  cause  that  needs  such 
manipulation  to  maintain  its  prestige !  What  would  happen 
to  Christianity  if  it  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  number 
"twelve"  ? 

17 


Nor  is  Mr.  Bryan's  knowledge  of  the  Bible  very  accurate. 
The  Bishop  of  London  calls  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  "an  amateurish 
theologian" ;  the  author  of  "Letters  to  a  Chinese  Official" 
answers  to  the  same  description.  In  reply  to  the  criticism 
that  Jesus  was  more  interested  in  the  world  to  come  than  in 
the  one  that  now  is,  Bryan  offers  the  following : 

If  you  think  that  Christ  occupied  the  time  of  His  disciples 
in  discussing  the  beauties  of  heaven  to  the  neglect  of  things 
connected  with  the  present  life,  you  should  reread  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  you  will  discover  that  the  Master  seldom  referred  to 
the  future  life,  but  continually  emphasized  the  relations  which 
exist  between  man  and  man.  He  pointed  out  the  dangers 
which  beset  life  and  the  temptations  to  which  all  are  liable, 
and  He  fortified  the  individual  at  every  point  for  his  combat 
with  the  evil  in  the  world.  No  other  teacher  has  evinced  such 
a  perfect  knowledge  of  human  nature  or  so  analyzed  it. 

There  is,  indeed,  little  doubt  that  Christ  encouraged  "the 
neglect  of  things  connected  with  the  present  life."  What, 
for  instance,  did  Jesus  say  against  the  human  slavery 
of  his  day, —  against  the  cruel  subjection  of  woman,  the 
madness  of  war,  or  the  iniquity  of  political  despotism  ? 
Is  there  any  warm  defence  in  the  Gospels  of  the  ever 
glorious  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience?  Will  Mr. 
Bryan  quote  a  text  from  Jesus  in  favor  of  religious  tolerance? 
Did  he  counsel  love  of  one's  parents  or  children?  Did  he 
not,  on  the  contrary,  say  that  if  a  man  did  not  hate  his  father 
and  mother,  his  wife  or  husband,  his  sister  and  brother  for 
his  name's  sake,  he  was  not  worthy  to  be  called  his  disciple? 
And  on  the  questions  of  education,  labor,  humanity  to  ani- 
mals, intellectual  honesty,  art,  poetry,  music — Jesus  threw 
absolutely  no  light.  Whenever  a  practical  question  was 
pressed  upon  his  consideration,  he  generally  answered  it  by 
evasion. 

The  glorification  of  Jesus  has  always  appeared  to  us  un- 
necessary— if  he  was  a  divinity.  Grant  that  Jesus  is  a  God, 
and  all  praise  of  his  virtues  becomes  superfluous.  Why  try  to 
prove  that  Jesus,  a  God,  was  wiser  or  better  than  Confucius,  a 
man  and  a  "heathen"?  If  Jesus  was  kind  and  all-knowing, 

18 


could  he  have  been  anything  else,  being  a  God?  To  conde- 
scend to  compare  one's  God  with  a  Chinaman  is,  to  say  the 
least,  extraordinary.  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Bryan  thinks 
that  Jesus  needs  his  defence  against  the  rival  claims  of  a 
mere  human?  The  truth  is  that  Mr.  Bryan  realizes  on  what 
a  slender  thread  hangs  the  reputation  of  his  "divine"  teacher. 
Only  about  two  or  three  years  of  the  public  or  private  life 
of  Jesus  are  spread  before  the  world,  and  to  compare  his  three 
years  with  the  seventy  years  of  Confucius — to  compare  the 
public  career  of  an  unmarried  youth  who  assumed  neither  the 
responsibilities  of  a  family  or  those  of  citizenship — who  held  no 
public  office,  and  who  died  before  age  and  experience  had 
put  to  the  test  the  dreams  of  youth — to  compare  this  frag- 
ment of  a  life  with  the  broad  and  rounded  career  of  a  man 
like  Confucius  or  Socrates,  who  entered  into  all  the  rela- 
tions of  life  and  is  therefore  more  exposed  to  criticism  and 
attack  than  Jesus  with  his  three  brief  years,  is  to  resort  to 
what  Emerson  calls  "nauseating  exaggeration  of  the  person 
of  Jesus."  And  Mr.  Bryan's  lines  which  we  herewith  submit 
for  perusal  justly  expose  him  to  Emerson's  sharp  criticism: 

If  I  were  to  attempt  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ,  instead 
of  beginning  with  mystery  or  miracle  or  the  theory  of  atone- 
ment, I  should  simply  tell  you  the  story  of  his  life  and  how  he 
lived  and  what  he  said  and  did  and  how  he  died,  and  then 
I  would  ask  you  to  explain  by  any  other  theory  than  that  he 
was  divine.  Reared  in  a  carpenter's  shop,  having  no  access 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  other  races  and  people,  he  yet,  when 
about  30  years  of  age,  gave  to  the  world  a  code  of  morality 
the  like  of  which  the  world  had  never  seen  before,  the  like 
of  which  the  world  has  never  seen  since. 

Only  a  partisan  could  write  thus.  Why  all  this,  we  in- 
quire again,  if  Jesus  is  "divine"?  And  is  Mr.  Bryan  truth- 
ful when  he  says  that  at  the  age  of  thirty  Jesus  "gave  to 
the  world  a  code  of  morality  the  like  of  which  the  world  had 
never  seen  before"?  We  invite  Mr.  Bryan  to  make  good  this 
exaggerated  claim.  Which  of  the  moral  teachings  or  rules 
of  Jesus  was  not  known  in  the  world  before  his  birth?  Even 
the  "love  your  enemies,"  as  we  have  seen,  is  later  than  the 

19 


"Return  good  for  evil"  of  Lao-Tsze,  and  the  "If  thine  enemy 
be  hungry,  give  him  bread  to  eat ;  and  if  he  be  thirsty  give 
him  water  to  drink"  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  What,  then, 
shall  we  think  of  a  teacher  whose  influence  upon  his  disciples 
is  to  make  them  morally  callous,  careless  of  evidence  and 
altogether  indifferent  to  the  truth  ? 

In  conclusion,  when  our  representative  American  boasts 
that  the  average  man  in  China  "does  not  approach  in  mental 
strength,  moral  stamina  or  high  conception  of  life  the  prod- 
uct of  Christian  civilization,"  he  again  shows  his  inability  to 
reason  impartially.  If  the  alleged  mental  and  moral  superior- 
ity of  the  average  Englishman  or  American  over  the  China- 
man is  due  to  Christianity,  why  is  not  the  average  American 
negro,  who  is  also  a  Christian,  superior  to  the  average  Hindoo 
or  Chinaman?  Why  is  not  the  Bulgarian,  the  Roumanian, 
the  Abyssinian,  the  modern  Greek,  the  Armenian,  the  Syrian 
and  the  Kopt,  who  are  all  Christians — and  have  been  Chris- 
tians for  nearly  twenty  centuries — as  advanced  politically 
and  ethically  as  the  modern  heathen  Japanese?  Evidently, 
then,  Christianity  is  not  enough  to  account  for  the  standing 
of  a  nation.  Did  not  Christian  Russia  go  down  before  Japan  ? 

But  let  us  accept  Mr.  Bryan's  challenge  and  see  if  his 
claim  of  the  mental  and  moral  superiority  of  the  average 
Christian  over  the  average  Confucian  can  stand  the  strain 
of  evidence.  Is  the  average  Catholic  with  his  beads,  bones, 
relics,  holy  water  and  fear  of  hell  superior,  mentally,  to  the 
ancestor  worshiper  of  China?  Is  Mr.  Bryan  himself,  with 
his  dogmas  of  incarnation,  the  virgin-birth,  total  depravity,  a 
personal  devil,  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  the  Trinity,  etc., 
very  much  in  advance  of  the  yellow  man  with  his  primitive 
beliefs  ? 

In  regard  to  the  alleged  moral  superiority  of  the  average 
Christian,  we  beg  to  inform  Mr.  Bryan  that  only  the  other 
day,  a  first-class  daily  published  in  New  York  City  plead 
guilty  of  having  for  years  published  a  column  of  indecent 
personals — making  money  by  encouraging  vice  and  crime. 
Compare  Christian  Chicago  or  New  York  with  heathen  Pekin. 

20 


Is  life  or  a  woman's  person  safer  in  our  great  cities  than  in 
those  of  China  or  Japan  ?  Are  there  more  burglaries,  drunk- 
enness and  murder  among  the  followers  of  Confucius  than 
among  those  of  Jesus?  Would  not  a  little  modesty  on  the 
part  of  people  whose  daily  papers  are  filled  with  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  trial  of  Thaw — a  member  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  of  Orchard — brought  up  in  a  Christian  Sunday 
school,  and  now  a  "convert,"  be  more  becoming? 

Finally,  compare  Mr.  Bryan's  sectarianism  with  the  beau- 
tiful breadth  of  Goethe's  reflections  on  the  "average  China- 
man." "These  people,"  said  Goethe  to  Eckermann,  speaking 
of  the  Chinese,  "these  people  think,  act  and  feel  much  in  the 
same  way  as  ourselves,  and  one  soon  feels  one's  self  to  be 
on  a  level  with  them,  only  that  among  them  things  take  place 
in  a  clearer,  more  decent  and  orderly  fashion.  It  is  through 
strict  moderation  that  the  Chinese  Empire  has  been  pre- 
served through  thousands  of  years  and  will  subsist  for  the 
future."  0) 

To  the  same  effect  and  in  the  same  sweet  spirit  of  justice 
are  the  words  of  the  brave  Diderot :  "Apropos  of  the  Chi- 
nese, do  you  know  that  with  them  nobility  ascends,  and  de- 
scends never?  It  is  the  children  who  ennoble  their  ancestors, 
and  not  the  ancestors  the  children.  And  upon  my  word  that 
is  most  sensible.  We  are  greater  poets,  greater  philosophers, 
greater  orators,  greater  architects,  greater  astronomers, 
greater  geometers,  than  these  good  people,  but  they  under- 
stand better  than  we  the  science  of  good  sense  and  virtue." 

The  blush  of  shame  must  be  deep  upon  the  sectarian 
who  would  blacken  the  rest  of  the  world  to  help  on  his  own 
creed — who  would  pull  down  other  saviors  of  man  to  exalt 
his  own — as  he  reads  the  following  gracious  words  of  the 
Japanese  Bushido:  "Our  work,  we  take  it,  is  this:  To  battle 
for  the  right  and  uphold  the  good,  and  to  help  make  the 
world  fair  and  clean,  so  that  none  may  ever  have  cause  to 
regret  that  Japan  has  at  last  taken  her  rightful  place  among 
the  nations  of  the  world." 

(i)     Eckermann' s    Conversations,    Etc.      Entry    for    Janu- 
ary 31,  1827. 

21 


Oh,  an  end  to  sectarianism,  to  blinding,  degrading  preju- 
dice!  An  end  to  my  creed,  and  to  thine!  An  end  to  priests, 
heathen  or  Christian,  who  keep  nations  and  peoples  apart! 
There  is  only  one  Truth,  one  Beauty,  one  Goodness!  And 
these  three  make  One  Humanity! 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JUL  111980 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


051991 


3'158  00032  2759 


BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.   Y, 
Stockton,  Calif. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


